In Conversation about legal PR
At our second In Conversation event celebrating BLC’s 15th birthday earlier this month, we brought together three leading legal journalists for a frank discussion on the state of legal journalism, the stories dominating the sector and, perhaps most revealingly, what law firms and PR professionals still get wrong when engaging with the media.
Joining us were Haroon Siddique, legal affairs correspondent at The Guardian, John Hyde, deputy news editor at the Law Society Gazette and Neil Rose, editor of Legal Futures (and co-founder of Black Letter Communications). Between them they have decades of experience covering the legal profession from every angle, and the discussion ranged from ethics in the profession and law firm failures to the rise of private equity investment in law.
But one topic repeatedly surfaced throughout the evening: the quality of legal PR.
Current news agenda
For Haroon, much of the past year has been dominated by coverage of Palestine Action, accounting for what he estimated to be around 75% of his output over the last 12 months. With a Court of Appeal decision pending and further criminal trials ahead, it remains a major ongoing story, alongside growing debate around jury reform.
John pointed to the fragile state of parts of the legal profession, particularly the fallout from high-profile firm collapses such as PM Law, while Neil highlighted his continued fascination with innovation across the legal market – from boutique firms experimenting with new models to the increasing role of private equity in shaping the profession.
The conversation also highlighted how dramatically the media landscape has changed. Haroon is now one of only three full-time legal correspondents working in the national press, alongside Jonathan Ames at The Times and Suzi Ring at the FT. Meanwhile, trade publications face their own pressures, with many titles moving behind paywalls or narrowing their editorial focus.
What journalists want from PRs
While the discussion covered major sector issues, it was the journalists’ experiences with legal PR that arguably generated some of the most animated conversation.
All three panellists were clear: good legal PR is genuinely valuable. But too often, firms undermine themselves through poor targeting, weak storytelling and formulaic outreach.
One recurring frustration was the sheer volume of irrelevant pitches.
Partner promotion announcements were singled out repeatedly. John Hyde was blunt that promotions alone are rarely newsworthy unless there is a wider story attached. One successful example involved a lawyer whose promotion was tied to her achievements as a cricket umpire, with that human angle transforming an otherwise routine announcement into something genuinely interesting.
Neil Rose echoed the point, criticising the tendency for firms to issue generic press releases without considering whether they are actually relevant to the publication they are targeting. Stories about overseas oil exploration projects are unlikely to interest Legal Futures, just as introductory pitches explaining alternative business structures are unlikely to impress a journalist who has spent years covering exactly that subject.
The panellists also highlighted operational frustrations that regularly derail otherwise promising stories: interviewees disappearing on holiday immediately after a release is issued, embargoes being imposed after stories have already been published elsewhere, or PRs repeatedly chasing journalists with “just circling back to get to the top your inbox” emails that add little value.
Another frustration Haroon highlighted was the number of invitations from PRs asking him to “come in for a coffee” to discuss what he is currently writing about. His response was refreshingly straightforward: journalists already show you what they are interested in, it is published every day in the newspaper.
For Haroon, too many approaches demonstrate a lack of basic research or understanding of the publication’s agenda. Rather than generic networking requests, journalists value PR professionals who have taken the time to read their work, understand the themes they regularly cover and approach them with genuinely relevant ideas or commentary.
The message from the panel was clear: journalists expect PR professionals to understand both their publication and their audience before making contact.
Understanding the story
Importantly, the discussion was far from anti-PR. In fact, all three journalists agreed that their jobs are made significantly easier by good communications professionals.
The worst PR advisers were described as “post boxes” forwarding press releases, while the best were trusted advisers who understand their clients’ businesses, can identify genuine stories and are confident enough to engage properly with journalists.
John highlighted Vardags’ handling of a high-profile story involving a junior solicitor who had mistakenly divorced the wrong couple, something I have previously highlighted as a masterful PR response. Rather than refusing to engage, the firm acknowledged the error, publicly supported the employee involved and took control of the narrative. The follow-up coverage about the firm’s response generated even greater readership than the original story itself.
It was a textbook example of effective communications: understanding the story, responding authentically and recognising that transparency often earns greater credibility than silence.
Takeaways for law firms
The evening served as a useful reminder that media relations is not simply about generating coverage. It is about understanding audiences, identifying meaningful stories and building credibility over time.
Legal journalists are inundated with announcements every day. The firms and PR professionals who stand out are the ones who understand what makes something genuinely newsworthy, tailor their approach accordingly and add value to the conversation.
In an increasingly crowded legal market, that distinction matters more than ever.
View our 90-second highlights video below, or contact Kerry Jack to request a 30-minute edit featuring the key moments and insights from the discussion.
